America. .. 3 long years i have waited and this picture is finally relevent
x
Click to expand

Comments(140):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#12 - Cleavland Steamer (04/26/2013) [-]
3 long years i have waited


and this picture is finally relevent
#137 to #12 - Rascal (04/27/2013) [-]
you waited three years to post a picture on a content that has been reposted a metric crap ton in the past 3 years?

........wut?
User avatar #122 to #12 - WheresMyAccount (04/26/2013) [-]
This is disturbing on so many levels
#38 to #12 - CrackPipeWillie (04/26/2013) [-]
You think 3 years is long.. This things been in my folder for a while
#18 to #12 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
how do you feel?
User avatar #28 to #19 - knifeyoass (04/26/2013) [-]
do you have a reaction picture for everything?
User avatar #31 to #30 - knifeyoass (04/26/2013) [-]
what would your reaction be for chocolate cake
#32 to #31 - Cleavland Steamer (04/26/2013) [-]
close enough
close enough
User avatar #33 to #32 - knifeyoass (04/26/2013) [-]
a horse
#35 to #33 - Cleavland Steamer (04/26/2013) [-]
too easy
too easy
User avatar #36 to #35 - knifeyoass (04/26/2013) [-]
a monster vagina that takes pictures of people, photoshops it, and that how it gives birth.
#37 to #36 - Cleavland Steamer (04/26/2013) [-]
well this makes about as much sense as that, so...
well this makes about as much sense as that, so...
User avatar #39 to #37 - knifeyoass (04/26/2013) [-]
where the hell do you get all of this
User avatar #41 to #40 - knifeyoass (04/26/2013) [-]
how long have you been traversing this harsh terrain?
#45 to #41 - faithrider (04/26/2013) [-]
i don't know about him but...
#34 to #31 - Cleavland Steamer (04/26/2013) [-]
i have a ton for chocolate, but not specifically chocolate cake
i have a ton for chocolate, but not specifically chocolate cake
#58 to #31 - imlost ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
#80 - Dun (04/26/2013) [-]
It gets better when you watch it backwards.
It gets better when you watch it backwards.
#1 - heafi (04/26/2013) [-]
that's one ugly shaped gun in his coat
that's one ugly shaped gun in his coat
User avatar #4 to #1 - therealtjthemedic ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
Which one?
#7 to #4 - heafi (04/26/2013) [-]
This one. I mean I know nothing about guns, but all the others aren't block-shaped.
User avatar #8 to #7 - therealtjthemedic ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
looks like an Uzi or a Mac10.
Things are ugly as **** , yeah. Good for concealed carry, though.
User avatar #62 to #8 - thegamerslife (04/26/2013) [-]
no they aren't... the shape and weight of the gun does the user no favors when firing the weapon. as for magazine capacity, just get a glock 19 or 17 and a stick mag (32 rounds) for a mag change that way you can carry the pistol with the standard 15-17 round mags and if you need it you have the extra 32 rounder on you. mac10's (and similar) are more like a, go the the range and have fun type gun.
User avatar #63 to #62 - therealtjthemedic ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
What I meant is, good for a backpack or such.
Other than that, they're complete **** .
User avatar #64 to #63 - thegamerslife (04/26/2013) [-]
Even as a back up...eh to each his own. for a pistol back up, I'd rather have a S&W model 360PD for ankle carry or an M&P anything lol. rifle or shotgun in your car and home would be better anyways. :D just fight your way to your rifle, would make a home invasion much easier to fend off.
User avatar #65 to #64 - therealtjthemedic ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
I prefer a glock, personally.
Not too heavy, nice and small.
User avatar #67 to #65 - thegamerslife (04/26/2013) [-]
Yeah well any of the top three polymer guns are going to be generally the same.
S&W M&P, Springfield XD, or Glock. I prefer M&P line because they put a lot of time, effort and money into finding the natural grip angle that creates an outstanding POA (point of aim).
I have practiced drawing the gun, and without aiming can hit a 8" group at 7.5 yards. very helpful since it is important in a fight to be the first one getting shots off, if you have a gun that handles like an extension of your arm, you are able to just point your hand in the direction only thinking of where it is aiming is generally where it will hit. I practice to be able to get at least the first shot off while bringing the gun to the proper position/aiming. :D I feel like glocks have to be adjusted to much when bringing them up to aim...personal preference.
User avatar #76 to #1 - crazylance (04/26/2013) [-]
Which one exactly? I'm seeing a Derringer, a Mac-10/Uzi, a Colt/Beretta and his revolver.
#106 to #1 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
source?
User avatar #112 to #106 - heafi (04/26/2013) [-]
K-ON!
User avatar #78 - lip (04/26/2013) [-]
TOMMY GET OFF FUNNYJUNK AND DO YOUR WORK PLEASE.
User avatar #3 - douthit (04/26/2013) [-]
If you don't like tobacco or guns, don't buy them. Simple as that.
User avatar #6 to #3 - therealtjthemedic ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
Eeyup.
#96 to #3 - tyraxio (04/26/2013) [-]
It's not like both are dangerous for the people who don't buy them or anything.
+1
#43 to #3 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #71 to #43 - douthit (04/26/2013) [-]
Not necessarily. Smokeless tobacco doesn't. And it doesn't if the person smoking goes outside, does it at home, or those around them don't mind.
User avatar #89 to #3 - jinjo (04/26/2013) [-]
that's not a very good argument, as both of those things can DRASTICALLY affect others.
User avatar #57 to #3 - pappathethird (04/26/2013) [-]
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN
User avatar #70 to #57 - douthit (04/26/2013) [-]
haha nice
User avatar #9 to #3 - trollins (04/26/2013) [-]
I'm a complete neutral here, but some people are just concerned for others.
User avatar #10 to #9 - millenia (04/26/2013) [-]
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
User avatar #11 to #10 - trollins (04/26/2013) [-]
"Just because it was said by an old guy in a suit doesn't make it proper"

I hope we can have a dignified discussion without any cowardly red thumbing here. Take my green thumb.
#13 to #11 - jackalcureofprusia (04/26/2013) [-]
This is just me butting in with my two cents.
But
"Don't let criminals dictate your rights."
I forget who said that
Lemme provide an example - the other day I was applying for a job and on the front of the application it said, in 72 font, bold typface 'IF YOU DO ILLEGAL DRUGS, PLEASE DON'T APPLY HERE'
Like, really? Is that going to stop someone? If you put up a sign saying 'no guns in this bank' it's only going to stop the criminals. I understand right now we just want to slow the ease of access, background checks etc.
But all you'll do is create a black market and even increase violence in some cases.
#14 to #13 - trollins (04/26/2013) [-]
I just hope the U.S will be a little better on background checks and gun classes that are allowed, because I know that complete removal is never going to happen. I know the road to no fully automatics or 'pistol only'-ish laws actually working is a long and painful, one but the award of a truly safer world is worth it in my humble opinion.
#24 to #14 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
I see you're not too familiar with US gun laws. Full autos are functionally illegal. It sounds confusing, but I'll explain.
Back in 1934, there was a law passed call the National Firearms act. (NFA) Basically, any rifle shorter than I believe 14" and shotguns shorter than (I don't know for shotguns, sorry) and machine guns had to be registered and you have to pay a $200 tax stamp. Then, in 1986 the Hughes amendment was passed, which closed the registry for machine guns.

It cannot be pistols only, because of DC v Miller I believe. Basically that was a supreme court decision that said any weapon in common use with the military was protected by the American's Second amendment.
User avatar #29 to #24 - jajathezombie (04/26/2013) [-]
I don't see the sense in a "pistols only" law anyway. Pistols are less accurate and easier to conceal than rifles, and if you're buying a gun to protect yourself (which seems to be the reasoning everyone claims for buying a gun) a: there's no reason to hide it and b: you want accuracy so you can stop someone without killing them.
User avatar #60 to #29 - thegamerslife (04/26/2013) [-]
A: I don't give a single **** about trying not to kill someone who has prompted me to get to the point of pulling a gun in the first place (aiming for non kill shots will get you to miss more shots and put yourself in greater danger)

B: I have both, both are good. I have a pistol, which I would use to fight my way to my rifle if that is an option.

Follow up on A: Someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, by most laws it is assumed that individual would take your life in the process of robbing you of everything else anyways. I would not show mercy nor expect that anyone else should either on a home invader with (obviously) unknown intentions.
Aiming for anything except the largest mass on an attackers body is wasting your chance to save your own life. It's easier to take the shot at a charging attackers chest than at his legs.

remember: 2 to the chest, 1 to the head.
User avatar #68 to #60 - aerius ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
This kind of 'shoot first' attitude is why some countries think america is full of dangerous psychopaths. If you intend to straight up murder a thief by aiming for his fooking head and shooting him three times you probably can't be trusted with a gun, since with that attitude being drunk/angry could easily turn you into the criminal.
User avatar #81 to #68 - useroftheLOLZ (04/26/2013) [-]
Well you see, the world isn't full of unicorns and pixies, its the shoot first, ask questions latter, attitude that has put down thieves, murders, and rapists alike. And most people who take this attitude have something to protect, say a wife, and children. Trust me, criminal scum is going to criminal scum, almost always, if someone breaks into your house, and you somehow fail to incapacitate them, and they get away, there is a very high chance that they will strike again, only this time, they will come armed, and be with friends.

It does seem scummy to say that, but when it comes to the lives and property of individuals, some people are not willing to take a chance at maiming shots, and are going to go for the double tap, in some ways, that's just how the world works.
User avatar #69 to #68 - thegamerslife (04/26/2013) [-]
well good thing i don't drink i guess....also I tend to avoid any and all confrontation when carrying a gun...killing someone is the last thing I would ever want to do, but the previously mentioned scenario has no exception. someone breaks in, I'm not dicking around with my life just to spare some ******* burglar.
User avatar #102 to #60 - jajathezombie (04/26/2013) [-]
Well, excuse me for having respect for human life. And excuse me for thinking anyone who owns a gun should have enough training with it that they can aim accurately for a non-lethal shot.
User avatar #132 to #102 - thegamerslife (04/26/2013) [-]
You're ridiculous. how about you go try some simulated adrenaline training and tell me how easy it is to make "non-lethal" shots.
you're being childish, if someone has shown intent to take your life, they deserve no mercy.

Next time think before you speak.

simulated adrenaline dump: running/jogging until your heart rate is very high then immediately stopping, drawing, and taking shots on target.
User avatar #134 to #132 - jajathezombie (04/26/2013) [-]
I have. I spent two years training to be in the air force. Have you ever fired a gun? Ever had a near-death experience? Ever had any sort of training in keeping calm in emergency situations? If you can control your anger and panic, it is extremely easy to keep a level head when faced with a threat. It is not my place in this world to decide who lives and who dies. What if that burglar has starving children at home? Desperation can make people do crazy things, and I'm not in a position to presume malicious intent and take someone's life.

I don't hate criminals. I feel sorry for them, because people who commit atrocities are either pushed to it or are mentally unwell. Everyone is the hero in their own story.
User avatar #135 to #134 - thegamerslife (04/26/2013) [-]
Yes. Yes. and training no, experience yes. also that is for you, everyone is different. example: I see all of my surroundings and act accordingly when driving and have avoided several accidents within seconds, where as my fiance is slower to react and also in the recovery of the situation. everyone is different and to say everyone needs to take the "less lethal" approach is asking others to potentially give up their lives.
and yes it is your place to make that decision when that person is doing you or yours harm (also backed in courts and laws). the people you speak of are rarity, and I don't feel sorry for them either. I'm a good christian who believes in helping those in need, so asking for help is a better way to get it than breaking into a home and trying to take it.

"either pushed into it or are mentally unwell" could you get any more vague. my little brother is a 2 time class A felon and yet he still does things like rob people, not because he is pushed to it, or mentally ill, but because it gets him money, and he thinks he is good at it and doesn't need to change (making a career out of it, literally).
User avatar #27 to #24 - trollins (04/26/2013) [-]
Oh, sorry.
#25 to #22 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
Regarding background checks. No matter what, you have to have a background check when you purchase a firearm. The only exception to this rule is if your state allows private transfers, which is a citizen to citizen sale
#16 to #14 - jackalcureofprusia (04/26/2013) [-]
Background checks I can totally get behind. I think the only time when a bill was passed because of a single incident [and had a positive effect] was the brady bill.
Background checks I can totally get behind. I think the only time when a bill was passed because of a single incident [and had a positive effect] was the brady bill.
User avatar #61 to #16 - thegamerslife (04/26/2013) [-]
and bring out the fools.
link to help you along: www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD6iW920CIA
I don't think we deserve to be criminals by default.
Bonus link to help you understand what we already have in place a bit better: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2erIOR50tPU
User avatar #59 to #14 - thegamerslife (04/26/2013) [-]
Well your humble opinion is wrong, sorry but that is fact.
also what angry black guy said, and you read.
also, my AR isn't anymore lethal than other types of ranch guns it just looks and breaks down ( taking it apart for cleaning) like an M4.

knowledge is power, thus corrupting it gives the gov. more power over the less informed and the majority to sway opinion.
User avatar #15 to #14 - trollins (04/26/2013) [-]
Forgive my misplaces coma.
User avatar #56 to #3 - thegamerslife (04/26/2013) [-]
I have to agree with swiftykidd on this. tobacco is a huge issue for those in the area...my fiance has very severe Asthma because her grandmother smoked around her as a baby all the time...when you smoke it doesn't just hurt you, it can hurt those around you.

where as my gun I carry every day, around people in store and what not never hurts anyone until I need it to, to save my life or others.
User avatar #86 to #3 - gamerase (04/26/2013) [-]
The thing with guns is that normally people who buy them don't use them on themselves... so not buying a gun doesn't really protect you from some crazy jackass shooting you.
User avatar #17 to #3 - kyrill ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
the thing with tobacco, is that it affects everyone in the general area, and it's legal. I don't care if people smoke, I just think they shouldn't do it in public areas, cause it ***** up the lungs of everyone around them including children.
#48 to #17 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
yeah you probably think I shouldn't shoot people in public areas too you hippy
User avatar #105 to #17 - bulbakip (04/26/2013) [-]
ban public areas.
#74 to #17 - casadue (04/26/2013) [-]
the thing with guns, is that it affects everyone in the general area, and it's legal. I don't care if people shoot, I just think they shouldn't do it in public areas, cause it ***** up the lungs of everyone around them including children.
#26 to #17 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
Because my one cigarette is seriously going to " **** up" every lung in the vicinity. Also you're more concerned about ******* tobacco than you are to firearms.
User avatar #52 to #26 - admiralen ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
>implying youre the only one smoking in the world
>implying you dont smoke more then one cigarette in someones close proximity
>implying it doesnt smell like ****
User avatar #73 to #52 - douthit (04/26/2013) [-]
There are nonviolent (nongovernmental) ways to discourage people from doing things we don't like, we don't always have to pass a law--which initiates violence.
User avatar #79 to #73 - admiralen ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
how the hell does a law initiate violence?
User avatar #82 to #79 - douthit (04/26/2013) [-]
I'm talking about natural law, real law. Not artificial manmade laws like saying you have to wear a seatbelt, or that you can't drink until you're 21. Universal morality says the initiation of force is wrong, which is why murder, rape, assault, etc are wrong. That's also why self-defense isn't wrong. And passing laws against nonviolent and victimless acts is immoral, because the laws don't just say, "you shouldn't do that" or "shame on you". Laws are enforced through violence, and if that violence is directed towards an act that's nonviolent or is victimless (drug use, gun ownership, prostitution, gambling, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, etc.), then it's the enforcement of that law that's initiating or beginning violence.
User avatar #84 to #82 - admiralen ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
theyre only enforced with violence if you break them, if you dont **** around and go "ima keep my guns **** you cops" there wont be an issue
User avatar #100 to #84 - douthit (04/26/2013) [-]
They're all enforced through violence or threat of violence, which is essentially the same. We already arrest people whether they murder someone or just threaten to.

By your logic there's no violence and no immorality, even if we live in a completely totalitarian society, so long as nobody resists? No, that's wrong. Rape is still rape, even if the woman doesn't fight back. Murder's still murder, even if the guy just stands there and takes the bullet.
User avatar #109 to #100 - admiralen ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
violence is when someone forces something upon someone, but you dont seem to get that you live in a democracy, that means you vote for these laws yourself, then if some tards choose to fight it.
and theres a slight difference between rape and keeping your guns.
i do like that you used bullet as the murder weapon though
User avatar #110 to #109 - admiralen ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
*then if some tards choose to fight it they should leave the democracy or try fighting for their rights in other ways then "hurr durr ill shoot the one who tries to take my guns"
User avatar #118 to #110 - douthit (04/26/2013) [-]
Should women have fled the US when there was misogyny? Should kids have run away from home and gone abroad when there was rampant child abuse and child labor? Should slaves have submitted to their masters, because it was the law? You're completely amoral, as far as I can tell. Give me a decent and actual argument.
User avatar #129 to #118 - admiralen ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
im saying you can change things aswell, you shouldnt hold onto the gun law amendment cause it was written in another time by people who had no idea what would become of your country, seriously dude, you say they violate rights but who gave you these rights in the first place
User avatar #116 to #109 - douthit (04/26/2013) [-]
I know you like the bullet reference, because you've obviously got some sort of ingrained, illogical bias against guns and gun owners.

I live in a constitutional democratic republic, which means that while we have elected officials, there are certain rights that indivuduals are supposedly guaranteed no matter who is elected. That's why free speech, gun ownership, and public trials are all guaranteed as a minimum of what government can't take away. But I guess we're supposed to forget about that part.

What about the minority who loses the vote? You're saying 51% can justly violate the rights of 49% just because they say so? That's a legalistic argument, saying might makes right. Rape, murder, theft of property (guns included)--it's all immoral and requires violence or the threat of violence.
User avatar #128 to #116 - admiralen ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
those rights have been changed before, and believe me, gun rights arent that important, no one will get hurt and there will be no apocalypse just cause someone takes away your guns, and i guess you dont know much about politics, everyone are represented, its just in voting matters in senate that the 51 can decide over 49, if your party gets 15% of the votes they will have 15% of the spaces, atleast thats how its in my country
User avatar #92 to #26 - skullzero (04/26/2013) [-]
If that's how every smoker thinks, then that's millions and millions of cigarettes a day. That is ******* up people's lungs, unless you only smoke in a sealed room where the cancer will only get you and not me...
#90 to #17 - faldrok (04/26/2013) [-]
Glorious UK master race, no smoking in public areas and inside public buildings

pic related: how I felt when I'd typed this out then realised I didn't have the right ZP pic in my reaction folder
#51 to #17 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
jesus. you don't get cancer from someone walking by you with a cigarette. second hand smoke is a danger to someone who lives with a smoker, and they smoke in the house and on car rides and around the person all the time. Not from walking past someone on the sidewalk who happens to have a cigarette.
User avatar #66 to #51 - aerius ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
it is if they already have asthma. Just going past them can give someone with a pre-existing condition a violent coughing fit.
#140 to #17 - Rascal (04/28/2013) [-]
Implying cigarette smoke is any more hazardous then the day to day **** we eat and breath anyway.
User avatar #136 to #17 - luquaz (04/26/2013) [-]
not all tobacco is smoked btw.
#123 to #17 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
oooh wow.
Tobacco kills people.

Get over it, look at what is fed to children. SOme of the crap that they put in food is just as bad.
Not so bad but still, what do you think the cellulose powder in shredded cheese is?

....Sawdust.
#114 to #17 - fragglerocks (04/26/2013) [-]
So does smoke from cars exhaust, so it shouldnt be allowed to drive in public either?
#107 to #17 - namesboo (04/26/2013) [-]
Mfw my parents smoke weed and tobacco in front of my 4 year old sister
Mfw my parents smoke weed and tobacco in front of my 4 year old sister
User avatar #95 to #17 - luquaz (04/26/2013) [-]
uh uh uh. THAT my good sir, have not been proven.
User avatar #139 to #95 - kyrill ONLINE (04/27/2013) [-]
uh uh uh. THAT my good sir, has been proven countless times...
#93 to #17 - unholyjebus (04/26/2013) [-]
Smoking in open spaces is fine since the second hand smoking is negligible, it's when people smoke in doors or a bus stops it becomes a problem.
User avatar #72 to #17 - douthit (04/26/2013) [-]
Not if you're outside.
#50 to #17 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
[url deleted]
#111 - rambearclaw (04/26/2013) [-]
Back in my day newer ****** unfunny Simpsons comics were only posted once and didn't make the front page.
#83 - trollzorr (04/26/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #101 - rieskimo (04/26/2013) [-]
As an ex-smoker I think the new anti-smoking ads are ********* . I don't think smoking should be allowed inside the workplace but the direction they're heading is you'll have to be in a hermetically sealed container before somebody can have a smoke.

Moreover I just hate the fear-mongering that they're using to push smokers around.
User avatar #126 to #101 - thepalmtoptiger (04/26/2013) [-]
I haven't seen anti-smoking ads in a few years, but then again I don't watch TV anymore. There really should be certain places that you can't smoke though. Restaurants, bars, and family places (like bowling alleys) are big ones. Even if there is a smoking area in all of these establishments, the smoke ends up diffusing to all areas of the building. If you want to smoke then that's your business, but I don't want to walk out of a building or wait at a bus stop and have to breath in your **** . It isn't even about the medical repercussions, I just don't like it, and I think that most people would prefer not to inhale that **** if they don't need to.

You have rights, but they end where mine begin. The second you start stepping on my toes then you'd better believe that I'm gonna start stomping the **** out of yours.
User avatar #131 to #126 - rieskimo (04/26/2013) [-]
I understand what you're saying, I really do. I'm an EX-smoker, that means I don't smoke anymore and I really don't want to smell it if I can help it. However, we need to ******* be adult about this **** . I've seen plenty of people give a smoker **** because they're having a smoke in a corner ******* 20 feet away. Smoking is illegal in all indoor establishments in most of the US, so far I think that's working great. It just makes sense, especially in food areas. There was a commercial about how some kid who has asthma and had an extremely rare and extremely strong attack because of smoke and are championing it like that's how everybody is going to react to second-hand smoke. I'm way ******* against that, if you want to reduce the popularity of smoking don't start a campaign with least-likely situations. Smokers have rights just as much as non-smokers have rights. I think it's fair that smokers should smoke outside in areas that don't have a large child population(no playgrounds or **** like that). As long as they're there, I've yet to see any serious problems.

Overall I'm against smoking as an ex-smoker(that's why I quit afterall) and my status as an ex-smoker is purely voluntary. I chose to start smoking and I chose to quit, and I quit cold-turkey.
User avatar #133 to #131 - thepalmtoptiger (04/26/2013) [-]
That ad sounds pretty ridiculous. The shock and awe route is almost never a good idea.
#120 to #101 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
its bad enough that you stink of it. and then youre puffing it all over the place making us breathe it. **** you!
User avatar #130 to #120 - rieskimo (04/26/2013) [-]
"ex-smoker" moron. I don't smoke anymore, in case you don't understand what the "ex" prefix means.

I don't care for the smell either but smokers should be allowed to smoke in certain public places without problem. Simple as that.
User avatar #5 - patrickmiller (04/26/2013) [-]
"Those who would give up freedom for safety deserve neither " ~ Ben Franklin
I would die before I let them take away our guns.
User avatar #23 to #5 - demandsgayversion (04/26/2013) [-]
We'll make sure your sacrifice isn't in vain.
#42 to #5 - kaylkhan (04/26/2013) [-]
These punks who have no clue about history or their own future might thumb you down but you are on the money. This country is founded on a Bible to teach us right from wrong and a Gun to defend ourselves from those who didn't get the memo. Those who don't like it have a huge selection of other countries to choose from.
User avatar #75 to #42 - DivderOfZero (04/26/2013) [-]
Why in the world would you think America was "founded on the bible"? Most of the founding fathers were Deists and Agnostics. In the Treaty of Tripoli it even states direct that America is NOT a Christian nation.
#141 to #75 - kaylkhan (04/29/2013) [-]
The 'founding fathers' were mostly masons and they wrote duplicitous language into the Constitution to leave a opening for the crap thats going on now, but the vast hordes of real Christians WERE the people who did the most to build it and prosper this nation. You have to look outside the public school lies and look at real history.
User avatar #142 to #141 - DivderOfZero (04/29/2013) [-]
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That right there should be enough to know we are not a christian nation.
User avatar #53 to #42 - admiralen ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
why dont you just go to somalia then, theres no one prohibiting your rights there faggot
User avatar #99 to #5 - festinas (04/26/2013) [-]
I know I should support your right to have an opinion, but holy **** i disagree.
User avatar #108 to #99 - redeadhunter ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
Not taking a side in this debate, but I have to point out that you don't have to agree with someone to support their right to have an opinion.
#124 to #108 - festinas (04/26/2013) [-]
Oh you're just asking for it now aren't ya!
User avatar #91 to #5 - jinjo (04/26/2013) [-]
Another Ben Franklin quote

''Damn, my slave ladies are looking mighty fine. I best **** them all tonight and have them up working again early to maintain those strong slave-lady arms''

Also, who EVER with any kind of following has said 'let's take away guns'? No one.

There have been bills presented to add limits to what you can have, like reduced magazines, and a push for strong regulation on semi-auto weapons. You know, so when you shoot up a school or a movie theater you have to stop and reload after you've killed 7 kids.
User avatar #54 to #5 - admiralen ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
people like you are the reason people try to outlaw guns, youre irresponsible and obviously cant handle owning one
#47 to #5 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
For the last time, no one is trying to take away your guns. Stop overreacting.
#88 to #47 - creepyunclebob (04/26/2013) [-]
Unless they are hunting rifles that look scarier than other hunting rifles, right?
#87 to #5 - gamerase (04/26/2013) [-]
THEY TERK 'ER GUNS!!!
THEY TERK 'ER GUNS!!!
User avatar #20 to #5 - Deeticky (04/26/2013) [-]
You sure butchered that quote.

The original quote was: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Source: en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
User avatar #94 - lightninghedgehog (04/26/2013) [-]
in all honesty, cigarettes are easier to get in this country.

first of all, they're a lot cheaper, and second, most gas stations don't ask for your ID as long as you somewhat look like you're at least 18. also, they're a bit more widely available.
#104 to #94 - urbemarmis (04/26/2013) [-]
you need to have a clean record to get a gun then theres a grace period in most states. they cost a lot depending on what type you want and if youre in a liberal state like mine youre getting the cops called on you if you have the gun and ammo too close to each other. everyone acts like guns are evil. they arent. its the people that are evil and the evil people are far and few compared to the good guys
#44 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
this is exactly the kind of ******** that will render you defenceless against the government when they come a-knocking wanting a revolution and what not!
User avatar #55 to #44 - admiralen ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
cause we all know the government is a separate entity from the people, its not like its made by people for the people of people
#46 to #44 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
Ohh grandpa, I see you forgot to take your meds again.
User avatar #97 - spoogle (04/26/2013) [-]
Mac10's are illegal, no?
User avatar #98 to #97 - bitchplzzz (04/26/2013) [-]
Its a joke, bro
User avatar #103 to #97 - LocoJoe (04/26/2013) [-]
Nope. FA ones are regulated though.
User avatar #2 - chandaman (04/26/2013) [-]
wow. never seen this before
 Friends (0)